Insurance Law – Week of August 19, 2022 – Insurance Law and Business – United States


The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished brief last week Golden Corral Corp. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co.No. 21-2219 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2022), affirming the North Carolina District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the insurer. Consistent with the previous decision in Uncork and Create, the court held that “the business loss and expense deduction scheme does not apply. [plaintiff’s] want to spend money due to the epidemic of COVID-19 in the absence of any damage to property or injury to the closed premises. “

Having previously ruled in the Illinois and Michigan cases that COVID 19 does not cause “direct physical loss,” the Seventh Circuit has now applied the same analysis to the Indiana case, which it rules. Circle Block Partners v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., no. 21-2459 (7th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) that “the plaintiff’s temporary denial of use of his preferred property, without some material change, does not fall within the reasonable definition of material loss or direct damage.” The court rejected the insurer’s claim that the virus “adsorbs” on the surface and physically changes it. Further, the court ruled that the statute of limitations was clear and denied the insurer’s motion to remand the case to the Indiana Supreme Court for resolution.



The Second Circuit has ruled that the dispute between the excess insurer and Exxon regarding the issuance of MTBE claims must be resolved and that the court’s order affirming Exxon’s results should not be vacated despite a US District Court judge’s later finding. that he had stock in Exxon. In ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., no. 201-1946 (2d. Cir. Aug. 12, 2022), the court ruled that the “Alternative Dispute Resolution Endorsement” that replaced the standard clause requiring arbitration in London under the English Arbitration Act of 1960 was binding and enforced even though the language which seemed to require agreement with the parties. The Second Circuit also found that there was no evidence of bias on the part of Judge Ramos to accept the case, as confirmed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil (who before joining the bench was a leading travel counsel. in many insurance areas). While it ruled that the District Court properly granted Exxon’s motion to compel arbitration, it erred in awarding damages in excess of $25 million when it affirmed the award, “as the parties’ agreement stated that in the event of a breach, punitive damages were the only remedy and did not provide for an award of damages.” everything.

CALIFORNIA First Class / Physical Loss / Cryptocurrency

A court in San Francisco has ruled that the owners of the insurance company are not responsible for the theft of Bitcoins from the “wallet” of the digital insurance company. Granting the Travelers’ motion to dismiss, Judge Curley ruled Burt v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co.No. 22-03157 (ND Cal. Aug. 16, 2022) that the theft was not a “physical loss” because cryptocurrency does not have economic existence, it is not made from tangible things, and it is not perceptible to the mind. of touch.

DELAWARE Opioid Requirements/Method/Forum Not Appropriate

A Chancery Court judge denied an insurer’s request to drop lawsuits filed by eight insurers against CVS following the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling in Rite-Aid that opioid claims were not covered by CGL insurance. Although the insurance court encouraged argument and argument that the Rhode Island lawsuit filed three days later was a clear and appropriate forum to try the case, Judge Wallace ruled that. In Re: CVS Opioid Insurance Litigation, no. 22C-02-045 (Del. Super. Aug. 12, 2022) that there was no “judicial competition” at this time and that Delaware insurance filings should be honored as first-filed. In addition, the court ruled that Delaware was not an inappropriate forum and that CVS will not suffer because of the hardship here, especially since there does not appear to be any difference between the cases involving the two states.


The Florida District Court of Appeal ruled that Mold Buster Detection Services v. Citizens Property Insurance Assoc., No. 4D21-1210 (Fla. DCA4 Aug. 10, 2022) that the trial court was correct in dismissing the mold remediation company’s counterclaim. the customer’s homeowner’s insurance policy because the title insurance policy did not comply with the requirements of Section 627.7152. Although the plaintiff argued that the case was overruled by Section 627.7143, the Fourth Circuit held that Section 627.7143 only applies when the policy prohibits employment, which was not the case here.

ILLINOIS EPL/Biometric Privacy / Employer Statutes

Despite the insurer’s claim that both EPL and CGL policies applied to the former employee’s claim that the insurer violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, using and disseminating biometric identifiers, Judge Kocoras ruled in Church Mutual Ins. Co. v. Prairie Village Supportive Living, No. 21 C 3752 (ND Ill. Aug. 11, 2022) the language in the EPL policy bars any claims under the CGL policy and there is, in fact, no such claim. under the BPL policy for “violation of the rules applicable to the employer” the policy. In this caseThe District Court ruled that BIPA is not the same as the various statutes cited in this category, except for this exemption because it does not protect employees from discrimination and does not apply only to employers.

ILLINOIS Fixed Position

The Court of Appeals has ruled that the insured who was arrested on the grounds that was sued because of a dispute on his property is not entitled to receive a $2 million judgment following his denial of a judgment that should have been tried regarding its limit of $1 million. In Valdez v. Illinois Ins. Corp., 2022 IL Appl (1st) 201121 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 1, 2022), the First District found that the Illinois statute on “work to settle” lawsuits requires the plaintiff to prove that (1) at least one of the three. the party sought to settle within the policy limits, (2) there was a “reasonable possibility” of finding liability against the owner, and (3) there was a “reasonable possibility” of recovery beyond the policy limits. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff had not established facts showing that an enhanced judgment was possible. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s argument that, after receiving the demand for policy limits, the policyholder had the right to advise the policyholders of the demand and the risk of an excess claim and that, failing to do so, they forfeited. his right to challenge this additional decision.


In one of the most recent rulings since the Home Insurance Company was declared bankrupt, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that.
Regarding the Liquidation of Home Insurance Company, No. 2021-0211 (NH Aug. 12, 2022) that the judge in the Business Division of the Supreme Court did not err in accepting the Liquidator’s action and accepting the Deadline for Amendment of Information on the law, facts and circumstances presented”; and (2) concluding that the Claim Amendment Deadline concerns “the balance between the speedy completion of the dismissal and the protection of unlimited and indefinite claims” according to RSA 402-C: 46, I (2018).


Within the Insurance Industry

Allstate announced last week that Glenn Shapiro will retire as president of its Property-Liability division at the end of next month. Shapiro joined Allstate as its chief claims officer in 2016 and has been there since 2018.

Lloyds released a new Market Bulletin last week expressing concern about the impact of government-sponsored cyberattacks. Image of YF581 requires that all independent cyber-attack policies within CY and CZ contain clauses that do not exclude or indemnify against threats resulting from any state-sponsored attacks. These residues should:

  1. Do not include losses resulting from war (whether declared or not), as the policy does not have a separate war exclusion.
  2. Do not include losses resulting from state-sponsored attacks that (a) seriously interfere with the government’s ability to function or (b) seriously compromise the security of the state.
  3. It is clear if the cover excludes computer systems located outside of any country affected as described in 2(a) & (b) above, by a government sponsored cyber-attack.
  4. Establish a solid foundation on which parties agree on how any government-backed cyber-attack will be carried out against one or more countries.
  5. Make sure all key words are defined correctly.

The content of this article is intended to provide guidance on this topic. Professional advice should be sought for your specific situation.